HATE SPEECH AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Many of us probably remember the old adage: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me." At a personal level, among kids growing up, there might be some truth to that. On a national level, however, evidence indicates that words, when inserted into inflammatory speech patterns can be dangerous and have historically preceded horrific genocides. We all had the unfortunate experience of suffering through the occasional uncontrolled rants from former President Donald Trump. For a while, after he left office, Mr. Trump's erratic behavior was masked, numbed and normalized by the political fatigue permeating the media and the public. But ever since he was issued multiple indictments, and since he decided to become the primary candidate for his party's nomination in next year's presidential contest, things changed. His words took a violent turn - like calling for former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley to be executed, mocking a potentially fatal assault on a congressional spouse and urging police to shoot shoplifters - suggest a line has been crossed. For the bulk of the time after he was elevated to national political prominence, Donald Trump openly expressed his disdain for migrants at our Southern border. He referred to them as rapists and criminals, suggested they were not people, but animals from shit hole countries, infesting our country like rats, and he actually suggested that border patrol agents should shoot migrants who attempted to illegally cross the border. More recently, during an interview for "The National Pulse," he claimed that undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." This statement comes straight from Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf," which led to a Nazi rallying cry that translates to "Blood and Soil," replicated by Neo-Nazis and white nationalists during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. His incendiary rants against judges adjudicating his multiple indictments in Georgia, Florida, New York and Washington have become daily occurrences. Mr. Trump routinely refers to prosecutors as "a team of thugs." He called one potential witness "a gutless pig," and accused African American judges of "racism." Apologists for the former president point to his First Amendment rights. However, "Freedom of Speech" is not unlimited. In "Brandenburg v. Ohio" the Supreme Court, in 1969, concluded that a call for violence or mob action could be punished if it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." It seems reasonable to believe that many of Mr. Trump's utterances have crossed that line. Moreover, given his prominent position in our current political climate and the presence of his dedicated following, many of his public statements are outright dangerous. To quote well-known conservative attorney George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, who worked for Trump from 2016 to 2020: "Donald Trump is profoundly psychopathic in the way he expresses himself, and he is getting worse!" Let's revisit some historical cases. The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers, but with hate speech against a minority. Before Jews were driven out of their schools, their jobs, their homes; before the synagogues, shops and businesses were destroyed; and before there were ghettos and camps, words were used to stoke the fires of hate. Words were ultimately used as incitement to genocide. Six million perished. The Cambodian genocide was preceded by hateful discourse, systematically dubbing intellectuals, city dwellers, political opponents as well as ethnic and religious minorities as the enemy of the people. The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot killed 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians during the time he was in power, from 1975 to 1979. The 1994 genocide instigated by the majority Hutus in Rwanda took place after decades of hate speech, exacerbated ethnic tensions by spreading unfounded rumors, and dehumanizing the minority Tutsis. More than one million were killed in less than three months. The Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina was facilitated by constant nationalist propaganda demonizing the Bosnian Muslim population. Approximately 8,000 targeted Muslim men and boys were killed during a war which eventually ended up killing 100,000. The question often asked is: "Can it happen here?" People familiar with the historic backdrop to these and other genocides will most likely respond: "Unfortunately, yes, it can!" Verbal attacks on the judiciary have already resulted in a 400% increase in threats to federal judges - 4,000 reported incidences in 2020 alone. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the toxic combination of political polarization, anti-immigrant sentiment and the growth of technologies that help spread propaganda on line have grown the number of recognized hate groups to a historic high of 1020, a 30% increase over 2014. Some of us are still haunted by the Charlottesville rally during which torch bearing Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and members of the Ku Klux Klan were chanting: "Jews will not replace us." To which then President Trump responded: "There were fine people on both sides." You can't have it both ways. Respect for human dignity should not require a choice. Theo Wierdsma

DISCORD, DISCOMFORT AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

President Biden's recent change of heart about continuing the extension of the wall along the U.S./Mexican border raised a lot of eyebrows. During his presidential campaign three years ago, then candidate Joe Biden made it "perfectly clear" that during his administration not a single foot of wall would be built. A few weeks ago, he announced the release of funds to build up to 20 more miles of this controversial medieval barrier, claiming he had no choice but to release the money allocated during the Trump administration. When questioned about that decision, the president appeared openly uncomfortable. He confessed that he still believed that walls didn't work. Members of both political parties were quick to denounce his decision as hypocritical and politically expedient. However, social psychologists would refer to his reaction as a clear case of "cognitive dissonance," a mental conflict that occurs when beliefs don't reflect actions. The president displayed significant discomfort as he grappled with contradictory values, attitudes and perspectives about border control. As we move into next year's election cycle, many of us may experience similar uncomfortable episodes. Uncomfortable sensations which we will be motivated to reduce or explain away. To be clear, everyone experiences cognitive dissonance in their life. It happens when you hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time. You may crave hamburgers, even though you love cattle. You want to be healthy, but you don't exercise or eat a nutritious diet. You recognize that smoking or drinking too much is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You know you should drink eight glasses of water every day, but you drink coke instead, since it consists predominantly of water, and it tastes better. The link to politics seems obvious. We essentially have a two party system. Not every point of view is represented in isolation, like, for instance, in a proportional representation system used predominantly in Europe. Many of us will vote along straight party lines, holding our nose, not necessarily agreeing with everything contained in our party's platform or proclaimed by its candidate. We find ways to reduce our discomfort by yielding to social pressure, by trivializing the importance of discordant opinions, by denying responsibility or by other means that help us feel better about our decisions. A pertinent current example is the dissonance experienced by observers who are asked to state a position on Israel's response to the slaughter carried out by Hamas terrorists inside their country on October 7. Many will agree that Israel has a perfect right, or even a responsibility to go after the assassins with lethal force where ever they maintain their base of operations inside the Gaza Strip. However, most will also acknowledge that these militants reside among 2.3 million Palestinians, 52.3% of which are children under 18, who are wedged in tight living quarters with nowhere to hide or go. Hamas callously and openly employs this population as human shields. A military incursion will likely kill many of them. Anyone unconcerned by this prospect lacks compassion. We should all feel extremely uncomfortable contemplating the outcome of this festering conflict. While this may be an extreme example of a situation creating incompatible thoughts about outcomes in search of morally and politically acceptable solutions, the upcoming election year promises to be filled with discordant thoughts. Politicians tend to specialize in identifying what makes us feel uncomfortable, and suggesting dissonance reduction solutions that involve their personal records, opinions or prescriptions. American social psychologist Leon Festinger originated the theory of cognitive dissonance around the middle of the twentieth century. His work has been the focus of over 60 years of research, which can offer insights into the growing divide between what many politicians say and what they later say or do. Whether resultant discrepancies amount to political hypocrisy, expedience or situational change depends on our comfort level with the messenger. Theo Wierdsma